3 ms·

The answer is nothing. Apple did exactly what they should have done. The police failed to follow up properly.

logfromblammo 8y ago
The police follow different procedures based on who is making the report. If you are an individual, and someone steals your iPhone, then you use the locator feature to pinpoint the exact address where it is, look up the name of the person living there, have a plausible story for why that person had opportunity to steal it, dig up the serial number from your records, and hand all that info over to the police, they will give you a report that you can give to your insurance company, caution you against approaching the thief yourself, and do literally nothing else. You did all the investigative work. All they'd have to do is show up with a search warrant. Aaaand nothing happens. If you are Apple, and someone steals your iPhone, then you use facial recognition tech to link the thief to the name and address of a stolen identity, then the cops will raid that address and arrest the person, without even bothering to investigate, or even validate Apple's info, first. Perhaps they call a VIP number rather than 911 or the public number for the main automated phone tree, that bypasses all the layers of "we're busy with important work, so piss off"? This is the same problem as SWATting attacks. Police procedure is hackable, by saying the right words to the right people, to turn it into a guided weapon against a target, who is occasionally killed by a cop made too twitchy by the "everyone wants to kill you" training. Apple provided false information to the police. This resulted in an arrest, which is potentially traumatic and violent. They could have given just the video footage of the thefts. But instead, they became part of a system that hacks police procedure to launch attacks against innocents. Someone was arrested on the basis of the output of a facial recognition program, without any consideration to the fact that it had been hacked, using the very simple and very easy attack of linking the face to someone else's name.
- danaris 7y ago
  Why would giving the the video footage, and not the ID information they had on file, have been better? Consider it from the perspective of not having the information that the ID was false. Why would you give the police less than all the information you had? Why would you want the police to have to do all the work to figure out who that face on the video is, when you have their ID? Furthermore, even if you knew the ID was false (or even suspect), giving the ID information to the police, along with your assessment of its validity, would still be better. They would have an extra data point to use to try and trace the real thief. And, again, the facial recognition program did not perform the identification of the thief. It merely linked his presence in multiple stores at the times of theft. The identification information came solely from the stolen ID the thief gave when he purchased something legitimately in one of the stores.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    I operate under the assumption that the majority of cops are just doing the job for a paycheck, and not out of any genuine desire to do the job correctly arising from a professional work ethic. I get it--it's just like every other job. Only a few people actually care about what they do, and the rest know what it means to just be an employee. Giving the footage, without the name, forces the cops to positively identify the suspect through investigation of crime scene evidence. The FaceID-generated name is just speculation from Apple. Operating under the assumption that the cops will do the absolute minimum amount of work to clear the case, just giving the video runs the risk that they will decide that identifying the suspect is too difficult, and give up. But bear in mind that they failed to identify the real suspect anyway, and also arrested an innocent person, just because Apple said that's the person who did it. The professional cops, who are usually not as knowledgeable about computing science as the professional software developers, may be unaware of the GIGO principle--garbage in, garbage out. They don't know how Apple assigned a name to the face, but they trust them, because Apple spends a lot of marketing dollars getting people to believe that all their stuff "just works". The facial recognition software linked the face with a name attached to all the faces that didn't. Apple can certainly give a rate of false positives and false negatives for the face-matching, but I'm not sure they have any idea how many people are showing them fake IDs. That's something cops and bouncers would know, not ordinary retail employees. If you were a cop, and someone dropped this case on your desk, what would you do? I, personally, would search for that name on every corner of the Internet before getting off of my ass. I'd be looking for any excuse I could find to not go out to arrest someone, because that's work, and solving property crimes, especially shoplifting cases, is not noteworthy or glamorous. But Apple is rich, so I'd put just a tiny extra effort in to find the real thief, in case I ever wanted to run for sheriff, and get them as a corporate campaign donor. I'd probably go to one of the department's fake Facebook accounts, upload a cropped still from one of the videos, and see if their auto-tagging software produces a match. If that didn't come up with anything, I'd have to get a search warrant for the named suspect and their home address, looking for any stolen Apple stuff. Then I'd see that the named suspect does not match the video footage. I'd give the best face-shot and a short video clip to the local TV news to see if that generated any tips or leads, and then finally write a report saying that the suspect could not be identified or located from the available evidence. But I'd be polite about it, because Apple is rich, and would certainly want to read the report. And then that would be it. Because every retailer has to live with a nonzero amount of shoplifting and other forms of shrinkage, even the rich ones.

The police follow different procedures based on who is making the report. If you are an individual, and someone steals your iPhone, then you use the locator feature to pinpoint the exact address where it is, look up the name of the person living there, have a plausible story for why that person had opportunity to steal it, dig up the serial number from your records, and hand all that info over to the police, they will give you a report that you can give to your insurance company, caution you against approaching the thief yourself, and do literally nothing else. You did all the investigative work. All they'd have to do is show up with a search warrant. Aaaand nothing happens. If you are Apple, and someone steals your iPhone, then you use facial recognition tech to link the thief to the name and address of a stolen identity, then the cops will raid that address and arrest the person, without even bothering to investigate, or even validate Apple's info, first. Perhaps they call a VIP number rather than 911 or the public number for the main automated phone tree, that bypasses all the layers of "we're busy with important work, so piss off"? This is the same problem as SWATting attacks. Police procedure is hackable, by saying the right words to the right people, to turn it into a guided weapon against a target, who is occasionally killed by a cop made too twitchy by the "everyone wants to kill you" training. Apple provided false information to the police. This resulted in an arrest, which is potentially traumatic and violent. They could have given just the video footage of the thefts. But instead, they became part of a system that hacks police procedure to launch attacks against innocents. Someone was arrested on the basis of the output of a facial recognition program, without any consideration to the fact that it had been hacked, using the very simple and very easy attack of linking the face to someone else's name.

danaris 7y ago
Why would giving the the video footage, and not the ID information they had on file, have been better? Consider it from the perspective of not having the information that the ID was false. Why would you give the police less than all the information you had? Why would you want the police to have to do all the work to figure out who that face on the video is, when you have their ID? Furthermore, even if you knew the ID was false (or even suspect), giving the ID information to the police, along with your assessment of its validity, would still be better. They would have an extra data point to use to try and trace the real thief. And, again, the facial recognition program did not perform the identification of the thief. It merely linked his presence in multiple stores at the times of theft. The identification information came solely from the stolen ID the thief gave when he purchased something legitimately in one of the stores.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  I operate under the assumption that the majority of cops are just doing the job for a paycheck, and not out of any genuine desire to do the job correctly arising from a professional work ethic. I get it--it's just like every other job. Only a few people actually care about what they do, and the rest know what it means to just be an employee. Giving the footage, without the name, forces the cops to positively identify the suspect through investigation of crime scene evidence. The FaceID-generated name is just speculation from Apple. Operating under the assumption that the cops will do the absolute minimum amount of work to clear the case, just giving the video runs the risk that they will decide that identifying the suspect is too difficult, and give up. But bear in mind that they failed to identify the real suspect anyway, and also arrested an innocent person, just because Apple said that's the person who did it. The professional cops, who are usually not as knowledgeable about computing science as the professional software developers, may be unaware of the GIGO principle--garbage in, garbage out. They don't know how Apple assigned a name to the face, but they trust them, because Apple spends a lot of marketing dollars getting people to believe that all their stuff "just works". The facial recognition software linked the face with a name attached to all the faces that didn't. Apple can certainly give a rate of false positives and false negatives for the face-matching, but I'm not sure they have any idea how many people are showing them fake IDs. That's something cops and bouncers would know, not ordinary retail employees. If you were a cop, and someone dropped this case on your desk, what would you do? I, personally, would search for that name on every corner of the Internet before getting off of my ass. I'd be looking for any excuse I could find to not go out to arrest someone, because that's work, and solving property crimes, especially shoplifting cases, is not noteworthy or glamorous. But Apple is rich, so I'd put just a tiny extra effort in to find the real thief, in case I ever wanted to run for sheriff, and get them as a corporate campaign donor. I'd probably go to one of the department's fake Facebook accounts, upload a cropped still from one of the videos, and see if their auto-tagging software produces a match. If that didn't come up with anything, I'd have to get a search warrant for the named suspect and their home address, looking for any stolen Apple stuff. Then I'd see that the named suspect does not match the video footage. I'd give the best face-shot and a short video clip to the local TV news to see if that generated any tips or leads, and then finally write a report saying that the suspect could not be identified or located from the available evidence. But I'd be polite about it, because Apple is rich, and would certainly want to read the report. And then that would be it. Because every retailer has to live with a nonzero amount of shoplifting and other forms of shrinkage, even the rich ones.